A Response of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church Regarding the Balamand Document U.S. Theo. Cons., 1994

1. Since the early 1980s, the Orthodox/Roman
Catholic Consultation in the United States, established by
the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the
Americas (SCOBA) and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
(NCCB), has closely followed the work of the Joint International
Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church
and the Roman Catholic Church. The U.S. Consultation has responded
to documents published by the International Commission as
part of its original plan for theological dialogue set down
at Rhodes in 1980: "The Mystery of the Church and of
the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity"
(Munich 1982), "Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the
Church" (Bari 1987) and "The Sacrament of Order
in the Sacramental Structure of the Church" (Valamo 1988).

2. More recently, as the International
Commission has interrupted its original plan in order to give
immediate attention to the question of "uniatism,"
the U.S. Consultation has also studied this question, reflecting
not only on the preliminary document released by the International
Commission in Freising (1990), the draft prepared for the
Commission in Ariccia (1991) and widely diffused, and related
texts, but also on our own North American experience. Three
brief statements already have been issued: "A Joint Communiqué
of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation in the United
States on Current Tensions between our Churches in Eastern
Europe (Brighton, Mass., 1990), "Joint Statement of the
United States Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation on Tensions
in Eastern Europe Related to `Uniatism'" (Brookline,
Mass., 1992), and "A Statement of the Catholic Members
of the U.S. Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation" (Douglaston,
New York, 1992).

3. Now that the final expression of the
International Commission's work has appeared in the document
"Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present
Search for Full Communion" (Balamand, 1993), we in the
U.S. Consultation have analyzed the document and taken note
of reactions to it by various Catholics and Orthodox, some
of which have been positive but others negative and even abusive.
We now wish to submit our common response and reflections
to the Joint International Commission and to others of the
wider community of faith.

4. Our Consultation rejoices that the International
Commission has been able to complete the work it set out for
itself on the difficult question of "uniatism".
With the Commission, we hope that "by excluding for the
future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics
at the expense of the Orthodox Church" (35), enough has
been achieved in re-establishing trust between Orthodox and
Roman Catholics after the events which led to the interruption
of the theological work of the Commission in 1990 so that
all members of the Commission can now return to that work.
The theological dialogue itself must be deepened if it is
to progress, and further issues relating to the ecclesial
status of the Eastern Catholic churches, only touched upon
at Balamand, need to be relocated within this deepening of
the properly theological task facing the Joint International
Commission.

5. We applaud the Commission's efforts
in the second part of the document to formulate various practical
rules and guidelines intended "to lead to a just and
definitive solution to the difficulties which the Oriental
Catholic Churches present to the Orthodox Church" (17).
These rules and guidelines call for:

reciprocal exchanges of information
about various pastoral projects (22);

avoidance of those forms of philanthropic
activity that might be construed as attempts to buy new
adherents to the detriment of the other church (24);

open dialogue at the local level (26);

avoidance of all forms of violence (27);

mutual respect for each other's places
of worship and even sharing of facilities when circumstances
require (28);

respect for the spiritual life and sacramental
discipline of the other church (29a);

consultation before the establishment
of new pastoral projects which might unnecessarily parallel
or even undermine those of the other church in the same
territory (29b);

dissipation of inherited prejudicial
readings of the historical record, especially in the preparation
of future priests (30);

resolving differences through fraternal
dialogue, thus avoiding recourse to the civil authorities
or to merely legal principles when seeking solutions to
property disputes or other pressing practical problems (31);

objectivity in the presentation of events
and issues in the mass media (32).

6. In our estimation, however, most important
of the practical rules and guidelines is the Document's emphasis
on the need for "a will to pardon" (20). We are
all aware that the history of relations between our two churches
often has been a tragic one, filled with persecutions and
sufferings, but we must not remain prisoners of this past.
At the present critical moment in the life of our churches,
particularly in those parts of the world which only now are
emerging from many decades of insidious pressures and overt
persecution at the hands of atheistic forces, the energies
of our churches must be directed toward assuring that "the
present and the future conform better to the will of Christ
for his own." As for "whatever may have been the
past, it must be left to the mercy of God" (23). But
how can our churches and our faithful truly acquire this will
to pardon? The Balamand Document offers a very helpful proposal:
"It is necessary that the churches come together in order
to express gratitude and respect towards all, known and unknown.
. . who suffered, confessed their faith, witnessed their fidelity
to the Church, and in general, towards all Christians, without
discrimination, who underwent persecutions." (33)

7. The Balamand Document very appropriately
seeks to present certain historical events such as the genesis
of the Eastern Catholic churches and their impact on relations
between Catholics and Orthodox (6-11) in an even-handed way,
without rendering specific judgments. However, its presentation
is rather schematic and contains some incomplete formulations.
Future theological and historical statements on these and
related items will call for more nuanced presentations.

8. The Document's historical account does
not highlight the important role which the Protestant Reformation
played in the West and its impact on Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
Mention of this would help to explain how attitudes of exclusivism,
justly criticized in the Document, developed among Roman Catholics
not primarily in response to the Orthodox but to other crises
and controversies.

9. While the Document's rejection of rebaptism
is clear (10 and 13), the question of rebaptism will need
further articulation in subsequent studies. In the text the
juxtaposition of rebaptism and "the religious freedom
of persons" (10) is somewhat confusing. Such an important
issue as rebaptism demands deeper historical and theological
investigations. The groundwork for this has been laid in the
International Commission's Bari Document (1987) which was
devoted to the intimate connection between "Faith, Sacraments
and the Unity of the Church." If, as that agreed statement
suggests (cf. 20 and 21), mutual recognition of sacraments
is inseparable from mutual recognition of faith, do our churches
in fact find the same essential content of the faith present
in each other, notwithstanding inevitable differences in verbal
formulation?

10. The Balamand Document's goal is preeminently
practical: to create a "serene atmosphere" for renewed
progress in dialogue "toward the reestablishment of full
communion" (34) by rejecting the proselytism and expansionist
practices and policies (35) associated with "uniatism".
In our judgment, its greatest strength lies in the rules and
guidelines presented in its second part. With the International
Commission, we would strongly recommend "that these practical
rules be put into practice by our churches, including the
Oriental Catholic churches who are called to take part in
this dialogue." (34) We also appreciate the effort made
in its first part to set forth the ecclesiological principles
which serve as a basis for these practical rules. We would
hope that our churches will also take them seriously. It is
likewise our hope that the International Commission will be
able to return to consideration of these ecclesiological principles
in the near future in the context of its theological study.

11. We are aware that the International
Commission did not intend the Balamand Document to be a complete
presentation of ecclesiology. Nevertheless, the Document does
draw our attention to several promising avenues for discussion.
For example, it presupposes the "communion ecclesiology"
which many theologians have found to be the most promising
way of conceiving the complexity of the Church. This approach,
in our estimation, changes the context of past disputes and
creates new possibilities for fresh examination of the issues
which historically have divided us, even though more work
in this area obviously is needed before full agreement is
reached.

12. We also note the Document's use of
the concept of "sister churches" (cf. 14). The use
of this venerable term in modern Orthodox/Catholic dialogue
has helped to place relations between our churches on a new
footing. We hope that, when the International Commission resumes
work on ecclesiology, it will be able more fully to explore
its precise significance and manifold implications. The concept
of sister churches includes the notion of mutual respect for
each other's pastoral ministry. As the Balamand Document states,
"bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect
the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops
and priests of the other church and for that reason to avoid
interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that
church." (29) The concept also includes the notion of
the co-responsibility of our churches for "maintaining
the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most
especially in what concerns unity." (14) This, we believe,
is a point which should be developed further. The Document's
forceful treatment of proselytization needs to be balanced
by a proper understanding of mission. Bishops are responsible
not simply for the pastoral care of their own faithful but
also for the good estate and upbuilding of the whole Church
and for the evangelization of the world.

13. In ecumenical efforts there often is
a tension between the views and actions of "higher authorities"
(26) and ecumenists on the one hand, and those of many Christians
at the grass-roots level on the other. The Balamand Document
as a whole expects higher authorities to act vigorously in
enforcing policies it deems advisable even while emphasizing
the importance of the activities of the local church (26).
In particular, it points to the necessity of a "a will
to pardon" at every level of church life. In a balanced
and even-handed way, it seeks to put an end to the present
tensions occasioned by the existence of the Eastern Catholic
churches. On the one hand, as the Document points out repeatedly:
"... `uniatism' can no longer be accepted either as a
method to be followed or as a model of the unity our churches
are seeking" (12), "because it is opposed to the
common tradition of our churches" (2). At the same time,
as the document also states, "concerning the Oriental
Catholic churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic
Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to
the spiritual needs of their faithful." (3)

14. The Balamand Document speaks frequently
of the "religious freedom of persons" (10) and "the
religious liberty of the faithful" (24), of "freedom
of conscience" (27) and "respect for consciences"
(25), acknowledging "the inviolable freedom of persons
and their obligation to follow the requirements of the consciences"
(15). The language employed in modern presentations of this
theme is familiar enough in the Western world in its concern
for human rights, and is certainly not alien to either of
our churches. In developing this theme, however, our churches
have called attention to the need for a coherent understanding
of community and therefore to the need to locate individual
rights and responsibilities within the common good. When the
Document speaks of "the faithful" and of their religious
liberty "to express their opinion and to decide without
pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either
with the Orthodox church or with the Catholic church"
(24), this distinction becomes crucial. Neither the Orthodox
nor the Catholic understanding sees the "faithful"
only as referring to an individual Christian apart from community.
Rather, we both urge that personhood can only ultimately be
grasped in relation to the "Body" and, through the
Body, to the tri-personal life of God. Where concern for the
solidarity and spiritual health of the community as a whole
is absent, the exercise of "freedom" and "liberty"
can lead all too easily to the fragmentation of society and
to the alienation of persons from each other and from God.

15. Important in this connection is the
Balamand Document's rejection of the premise that only one
of our churches is the unique possessor of the means of grace
in such a way that conversion to that church from the other
is necessary for salvation. The Document asserts that "on
each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted
to his Church . . . cannot be considered the exclusive property
of one of our churches." (13) To be sure, there may be
cases in which conscience leads an Orthodox or a Catholic
Christian to enter the other church (cf. 14). This, however,
does not mean that our churches should set out to "win
converts" by cultivating inappropriate fears and anxieties.

16. At the same time, the assertion that
"what Christ has entrusted to his Church . . . cannot
be considered the exclusive property of one of our churches"
(13) does not necessarily imply that the fullness of the faith
resides indifferently in each of our churches, as some critics
of the Balamand Document have incorrectly charged. There are
still a number of serious issues that divide us. Yet the assertion
does imply that the deficiencies and errors which we may see
in one another's understanding of doctrine and church structures
are not failures that would altogether exclude the other from
the mystery of the Church.

17. The Document speaks of itself as "a
necessary stage" (15) in the current theological dialogue.
We may hope and expect that it will be superseded as the International
Commission continues its work, beginning with "Ecclesiological
and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Structure of
the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church."
Even the practical rules and guidelines are described as "leading
to" rather than constituting a definitive solution to
the problems raised up by "uniatism" (17). As the
document stresses, a "climate for deepening our dialogue"
(20) must be created, beginning with a "will to pardon."
Our best energies must be put into the task of creating that
climate. While pointing out some shortcomings of the Balamand
Document, we nevertheless regard it to be a strong and positive
contribution to the theological dialogue between our churches.